Lois Lerner - deja vu

[Doc Savage Fan]

And that is exactly what the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is trying to find out.

Results so far: Dick.

They need to grant Lerner immunity so we can get to the bottom of this.

 

[boomerang]

They need to grant Lerner immunity so we can get to the bottom of this.

And, evidently more emails were just released after taking close to a year. But were they all released? By the accounts that I have read, no.

The left is amazing. Stonewall and delay the investigation as much as is possible and then declare it unworthy of any further investigation because nothing has turned up.

 

[HomerJS]

They need to grant Lerner immunity so we can get to the bottom of this.

Issa won't do it because he wants to keep his dog and pony show through Nov 2014.

 

[emperus]

Hey, if you want to be incredibly vapid for political purposes, be my guest. Just a shame that people like you are destroying my country.

This is the beauty of democracy. If a majority of voters want a government that operates totally outside the law, that's what we get. Sucks for the rest of us, but a nation where a majority support banana republic government behavior deserves to be a banana republic. We're getting exactly what we deserve.

Breathe.... I think Fox and/or Rush has gotten you all agitated, and seeing your argument you're not getting enough oxygen.


What would be the motivation for Obama to tell Lerner to give his half brother who he has barely met, who is Muslim, who the Right screams is a terrorist sympathizer and who runs a charity which builds schools and provides clean water in another Country which received only about 24,000 dollars (I believe in 2011) preferential treatment?

Do you really think the headache associated with that would be worth that to Obama? I mean really, really think about it.

You guys are nuts. Stop chasing ur tails. All the fury at this tiny charity would probably better be served going after people fleecing the US for 1,000 times the amount this "foundation" raises in 1 year.

Btw, you do know this is a 501(c)3 organization (charity) and not the 501(c)4 organizations that the IRS were paying closer scrutiny to?

 

[thraashman]

Breathe.... I think Fox and/or Rush has gotten you all agitated, and seeing your argument you're not getting enough oxygen.


What would be the motivation for Obama to tell Lerner to give his half brother who he has barely met, who is Muslim, who the Right screams is a terrorist sympathizer and who runs a charity which builds schools and provides clean water in another Country which received only about 24,000 dollars (I believe in 2011) preferential treatment?

Do you really think the headache associated with that would be worth that to Obama? I mean really, really think about it.

You guys are nuts. Stop chasing ur tails. All the fury at this tiny charity would probably better be served going after people fleecing the US for 1,000 times the amount this "foundation" raises in 1 year.

Btw, you do know this is a 501(c)3 organization (charity) and not the 501(c)4 organizations that the IRS were paying closer scrutiny to?

Logic and facts have no place in a thread started by boomerang dammit!

 

[First]

Issa won't do it because he wants to keep his dog and pony show through Nov 2014.

This.

No doubt Lerner, if given immunity, will divulge some boring shit that won't lead to the White House and the right will have wasted 1.5 years pretending this was Watergate. Likely nothing but overzealous agents interpreting already poor law to begin with.

 

[werepossum]

Breathe.... I think Fox and/or Rush has gotten you all agitated, and seeing your argument you're not getting enough oxygen.


What would be the motivation for Obama to tell Lerner to give his half brother who he has barely met, who is Muslim, who the Right screams is a terrorist sympathizer and who runs a charity which builds schools and provides clean water in another Country which received only about 24,000 dollars (I believe in 2011) preferential treatment?

Do you really think the headache associated with that would be worth that to Obama? I mean really, really think about it.

You guys are nuts. Stop chasing ur tails. All the fury at this tiny charity would probably better be served going after people fleecing the US for 1,000 times the amount this "foundation" raises in 1 year.

Btw, you do know this is a 501(c)3 organization (charity) and not the 501(c)4 organizations that the IRS were paying closer scrutiny to?

Why would Obama need to tell Lerner? She was clearly on board, whether he gave her her original orders or she simply felt empowered to use the IRS for their shared political goal, with granting quick approvals to liberal/progressive groups and endless stalling (along with demanding donor information and then giving that to proggie groups) to conservative groups, with perhaps three liberal groups thrown in last minute to give the loyal puppets talking points. Lerner knows that Obama's supporters will almost universally laud whatever dirty tricks are done in His name, so there is absolutely no reason to tell her to fast track this foreign charity (which is designed to take money from America and take it out of America) as well as backdate its application to make good its lies - 'cause that's what friends do when unconstrained by either law or conscience.

 

[Bowfinger]

Lois Lerner herself approved an application, in less than 1 months time, for non-profit, tax exempt status for an organization located in
KENYA 😱. She also backdated the application to cover two and a half years of donations. And the name of this organization? -----
THE Barack H. Obama Foundation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349853/lois-lerner-defense-mark-steyn

Wow. Just, wow.

Un. Fucking. Believable.

This is why we can't have nice things. We have the government we deserve.

She also backdated the application to cover two and a half years of donations.

You stupid fuck.

Speaking of "stupid fucks," looks like you nutter rubes have once again been played by your RNC propaganda masters. Backdating such applications is standard IRS practice once approval is granted:

From the IRS

When the IRS approves a timely filed exemption application, exempt status is recognized back to the date the organization was created. Thus, while an application is pending, the organization can treat itself as exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3). ...

And to corroborate, just so you paranoid drama queens don't claim the IRS changed its site to deflect your noise, here's another site randomly picked from the first few Google hits:

From the "Foundation Group", a site that apparently supports non-profits:
[ ... ]
The process for starting a nonprofit essentially consists of two legal steps: state-level incorporation and federal 501(c) tax exempt status. Since incorporation is the first step, there is necessarily a lag time between the organization’s legal formation and its applying for and receiving tax-exempt status from the IRS. It is not unusual for that period of time to reach one year or more. Therefore, when the IRS approves a nonprofit’s application for tax exemption, that approval letter is automatically backdated to the incorporation (formation) date. That is, so long as the period of time between incorporation and the filing of the 501(c) application does not exceed 27 months. ...

I couldn't come up with a good way to search for this, but I also suspect Lerner's name was automatically used for all approvals, whether she had any actual involvement or not. That's fairly customary in all sorts of government and private sector documents since the peons who do the work usually have no legal authority to act on behalf of their employers. Again, this is only educated speculation.

 

[emperus]

Why would Obama need to tell Lerner? She was clearly on board, whether he gave her her original orders or she simply felt empowered to use the IRS for their shared political goal, with granting quick approvals to liberal/progressive groups and endless stalling (along with demanding donor information and then giving that to proggie groups) to conservative groups, with perhaps three liberal groups thrown in last minute to give the loyal puppets talking points. Lerner knows that Obama's supporters will almost universally laud whatever dirty tricks are done in His name, so there is absolutely no reason to tell her to fast track this foreign charity (which is designed to take money from America and take it out of America) as well as backdate its application to make good its lies - 'cause that's what friends do when unconstrained by either law or conscience.

What may I ask was the shared political goal in letting a charity that operates in another country that only raised $24,000 get speedy service through the IRS? 🙄

And can you find me one conservative 501c3 org. that was held up?

Just breathe my friend. Breathe...

 

[emperus]

Speaking of "stupid fucks," looks like you nutter rubes have once again been played by your RNC propaganda masters. Backdating such applications is standard IRS practice once approval is granted:




And to corroborate, just so you paranoid drama queens don't claim the IRS changed its site to deflect your noise, here's another site randomly picked from the first few Google hits:


I couldn't come up with a good way to search for this, but I also suspect Lerner's name was automatically used for all approvals, whether she had any actual involvement or not. That's fairly customary in all sorts of government and private sector documents since the peons who do the work usually have no legal authority to act on behalf of their employers. Again, this is only educated speculation.

If your links are accurate, I suspected that. I also suspect she just signed the forms as head of the agency.

 

[thraashman]

Speaking of "stupid fucks," looks like you nutter rubes have once again been played by your RNC propaganda masters. Backdating such applications is standard IRS practice once approval is granted:




And to corroborate, just so you paranoid drama queens don't claim the IRS changed its site to deflect your noise, here's another site randomly picked from the first few Google hits:


I couldn't come up with a good way to search for this, but I also suspect Lerner's name was automatically used for all approvals, whether she had any actual involvement or not. That's fairly customary in all sorts of government and private sector documents since the peons who do the work usually have no legal authority to act on behalf of their employers. Again, this is only educated speculation.

Be careful, using measured behavior, logic, facts, and intelligent arguments just makes you a Kool-Aid drinker of dear leader King Barack HUSSEIN!!! Obama.

I do love how given enough time you can always find verifiable facts to prove the far right crazies wrong. (the far right crazies being anyone in the far right)

 

[First]

Bowfinger, god love you for putting in so much effort. I tip my hit.

 

[werepossum]

Speaking of "stupid fucks," looks like you nutter rubes have once again been played by your RNC propaganda masters. Backdating such applications is standard IRS practice once approval is granted:

And to corroborate, just so you paranoid drama queens don't claim the IRS changed its site to deflect your noise, here's another site randomly picked from the first few Google hits:

I couldn't come up with a good way to search for this, but I also suspect Lerner's name was automatically used for all approvals, whether she had any actual involvement or not. That's fairly customary in all sorts of government and private sector documents since the peons who do the work usually have no legal authority to act on behalf of their employers. Again, this is only educated speculation.

Interesting links, thanks. I thought approval could be backdated only to the date of the application. Here's another interesting tidbit. From your link:

The process for starting a nonprofit essentially consists of two legal steps: state-level incorporation and federal 501(c) tax exempt status. Since incorporation is the first step, there is necessarily a lag time between the organization’s legal formation and its applying for and receiving tax-exempt status from the IRS. It is not unusual for that period of time to reach one year or more. Therefore, when the IRS approves a nonprofit’s application for tax exemption, that approval letter is automatically backdated to the incorporation (formation) date. That is, so long as the period of time between incorporation and the filing of the 501(c) application does not exceed 27 months. ...

Bolding mine. From the approval letter: http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf
Approval granted: 6/26/2011
Approval filed: 5/23/2011 (taking 34 days as the time of consideration as noted)
Approval backdated to: 4/30/2008
Amount of backdating: 36 months 23 days
But hey, it's all good as long as it isn't a conservative group, right?

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! Just postdate the application date.

 

[thraashman]

Interesting links, thanks. I thought approval could be backdated only to the date of the application. Here's another interesting tidbit. From your link:


Bolding mine. From the approval letter: http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf
Approval granted: 6/26/2011
Approval filed: 5/23/2011 (taking 34 days as the time of consideration as noted)
Approval backdated to: 4/30/2008
Amount of backdating: 36 months 23 days
But hey, it's all good as long as it isn't a conservative group, right?

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! Just postdate the application date.

Enjoy your rage, but it's still not justified. From the link Bowfinger posted.

The 27 month period of time can, under certain circumstances, be extended indefinitely. Examples include:

A church or association of churches, or
A nonprofit with gross revenue averaging less than $5,000 per year, or
A nonprofit previously exempt under another nonprofit’s group exemption, or
A nonprofit incorporated prior to October 9, 1969 (don’t ask)

Even if none of those automatic extension criteria apply, a nonprofit can still get an extension on the 27 months simply by explaining that it had acted in good faith based on what was understood the situation to be

An organization that files an application after the 27-month deadline may be recognized as tax-exempt from the date of the application; it may also request exemption effective back to the date of creation by completing Schedule E, Form 1023, and checking the Yes box in Question 5 of that schedule. A request will be approved if the organization acted reasonably and in good faith, and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government. These standards are usually met if the organization files its application before the failure to file is discovered by the IRS.

 

[werepossum]

What may I ask was the shared political goal in letting a charity that operates in another country that only raised $24,000 get speedy service through the IRS? 🙄

And can you find me one conservative 501c3 org. that was held up?

Just breathe my friend. Breathe...

There's not a shared political goal (beyond endorsing the name) in giving this charity a speedy approval, merely a shared political goal in denying conservative groups the same consideration. This particular charity is important only in providing yet another datum point to be contrasted with the common treatment of conservative groups.

 

[werepossum]

Enjoy your rage, but it's still not justified. From the link Bowfinger posted.

The 27 month period of time can, under certain circumstances, be extended indefinitely. Examples include:

A church or association of churches, or
A nonprofit with gross revenue averaging less than $5,000 per year, or
A nonprofit previously exempt under another nonprofit’s group exemption, or
A nonprofit incorporated prior to October 9, 1969 (don’t ask)

Even if none of those automatic extension criteria apply, a nonprofit can still get an extension on the 27 months simply by explaining that it had acted in good faith based on what was understood the situation to be

Gotcha. I had not read that.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting links, thanks. I thought approval could be backdated only to the date of the application. Here's another interesting tidbit. From your link:


Bolding mine. From the approval letter: http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf
Approval granted: 6/26/2011
Approval filed: 5/23/2011 (taking 34 days as the time of consideration as noted)
Approval backdated to: 4/30/2008
Amount of backdating: 36 months 23 days
But hey, it's all good as long as it isn't a conservative group, right?

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! Just postdate the application date.

Further quotation from The Foundation Group:

Got that? Now stick with me…there are always exceptions. The 27 month period of time can, under certain circumstances, be extended indefinitely. Examples include:

A church or association of churches, or
A nonprofit with gross revenue averaging less than $5,000 per year, or
A nonprofit previously exempt under another nonprofit’s group exemption, or
A nonprofit incorporated prior to October 9, 1969 (don’t ask)

Even if none of those automatic extension criteria apply, a nonprofit can still get an extension on the 27 months simply by explaining that it had acted in good faith based on what was understood the situation to be. To quote the IRS regulations,

An organization that files an application after the 27-month deadline may be recognized as tax-exempt from the date of the application; it may also request exemption effective back to the date of creation by completing Schedule E, Form 1023, and checking the Yes box in Question 5 of that schedule. A request will be approved if the organization acted reasonably and in good faith, and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government. These standards are usually met if the organization files its application before the failure to file is discovered by the IRS.

You might want to stop digging before you look any more insane and/or stupid.

 

[Bowfinger]

Interesting links, thanks. I thought approval could be backdated only to the date of the application. Here's another interesting tidbit. From your link:


Bolding mine. From the approval letter: http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf
Approval granted: 6/26/2011
Approval filed: 5/23/2011 (taking 34 days as the time of consideration as noted)
Approval backdated to: 4/30/2008
Amount of backdating: 36 months 23 days
But hey, it's all good as long as it isn't a conservative group, right?

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! Just postdate the application date.

Doubling down? I didn't bother to quote everything. If you bother to read further, however, you'll learn that there is an established process for backdating beyond 27 months in some circumstances. If you want to make the argument that those circumstances don't apply in this specific case, I'd suggest you move out of the nutter disinformation bubble and warm up your Google Fu. I don't know that answer ... and neither do you.


Edit: I see others beat me to it. Thank you, gentlemen.

 

[fskimospy]

Doubling down? I didn't bother to quote everything. If you bother to read further, however, you'll learn that there is an established process for backdating beyond 27 months in some circumstances. If you want to make the argument that those circumstances don't apply in this specific case, I'd suggest you move out of the nutter disinformation bubble and warm up your Google Fu. I don't know that answer ... and neither do you.

Edit: I see others beat me to it. Thank you, gentlemen.

Now you have to wonder if there will be any renunciation of the supposed Progressive Conspiracy around that application. My guess is no.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting links, thanks. I thought approval could be backdated only to the date of the application. Here's another interesting tidbit. From your link:


Bolding mine. From the approval letter: http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf
Approval granted: 6/26/2011
Approval filed: 5/23/2011 (taking 34 days as the time of consideration as noted)
Approval backdated to: 4/30/2008
Amount of backdating: 36 months 23 days
But hey, it's all good as long as it isn't a conservative group, right?

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! Just postdate the application date.

Gawd. That's meaningless. The approval could easily have been backdated past the incorporation date, huh? How many other truly similar groups have received similar treatment?

You might notice that the fund actually has nothing to do with the President, but rather his Kenyan brother-

http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/Home.html

Funny things happen when you just copy/paste links w/o really examining them, huh? Which raving fringewhack axe to grind site did you glean that from, anyway?

What is the incorporation date & what does it have to do with the topic at hand- you know, Issa's rude grandstanding with a witness he knew wouldn't answer?

I rather suspect that the IRS uses different levels of scrutiny for organization of different scope & purpose when determining tax exempt status. Politicking matters, as groups are limited in that respect, by law. Groups who do so are rightfully provided more scrutiny.

So, uhh, how much politicking in this country do you figure that the president's brother in Kenya will be doing with donations, anyway? Should the IRS treat him as if he probably will, like any group with "Tea Party", "Patriot" or the usual right-speak code in their name?

 

[werepossum]

Doubling down? I didn't bother to quote everything. If you bother to read further, however, you'll learn that there is an established process for backdating beyond 27 months in some circumstances. If you want to make the argument that those circumstances don't apply in this specific case, I'd suggest you move out of the nutter disinformation bubble and warm up your Google Fu. I don't know that answer ... and neither do you.


Edit: I see others beat me to it. Thank you, gentlemen.

Yep, that's my bad. I did not read your entire link, just took what you posted at face value. But as I said to Emperus, this particular charity is important only in providing yet another datum point to be contrasted with the common treatment of conservative groups. Given that both the IRS and Obama have admitted wrongdoing there, I don't think that's arguable at this point even though Lerner did nothing wrong in this case.

 

[werepossum]

Gawd. That's meaningless. The approval could easily have been backdated past the incorporation date, huh? How many other truly similar groups have received similar treatment?

You might notice that the fund actually has nothing to do with the President, but rather his Kenyan brother-

http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/Home.html

Funny things happen when you just copy/paste links w/o really examining them, huh? Which raving fringewhack axe to grind site did you glean that from, anyway?

What is the incorporation date & what does it have to do with the topic at hand- you know, Issa's rude grandstanding with a witness he knew wouldn't answer?

I rather suspect that the IRS uses different levels of scrutiny for organization of different scope & purpose when determining tax exempt status. Politicking matters, as groups are limited in that respect, by law. Groups who do so are rightfully provided more scrutiny.

So, uhh, how much politicking in this country do you figure that the president's brother in Kenya will be doing with donations, anyway? Should the IRS treat him as if he probably will, like any group with "Tea Party", "Patriot" or the usual right-speak code in their name?

LOL The "raving fringewhack axe to grind site" was the Washington Post.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yep, that's my bad. I did not read your entire link, just took what you posted at face value.

:beer:

But as I said to Emperus, this particular charity is important only in providing yet another datum point to be contrasted with the common treatment of conservative groups. Given that both the IRS and Obama have admitted wrongdoing there, I don't think that's arguable at this point even though Lerner did nothing wrong in this case.

I think (almost) everyone acknowledges using partisan keywords was inappropriate. The point of contention is whether this was an honest mistake, i.e., an ill-considered shortcut to save time, or intentional partisan discrimination. Given that Lerner is the one who ordered the keyword targeting stopped once she found out about it (as documented in the IG report), the fury and accusations directed her way seems misplaced.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, wow; sorry about destroying "your" country. 😳 oopsy!


You still haven't explained which laws you think were broken.


Wow.

I owe you an apology, so . . .

You were right, this was fully within Lerner's authority and apparently not even that uncommon.

I was wrong.

Apparently I am why we can't have nice things.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, wow; sorry about destroying "your" country. 😳 oopsy!


You still haven't explained which laws you think were broken.


Wow.

:beer:



I think (almost) everyone acknowledges using partisan keywords was inappropriate. The point of contention is whether this was an honest mistake, i.e., an ill-considered shortcut to save time, or intentional partisan discrimination. Given that Lerner is the one who ordered the keyword targeting stopped once she found out about it (as documented in the IG report), the fury and accusations directed her way seems misplaced.

Perhaps, although that would make her pleading the Fifth distinctly odd. Unless as I've stated before she is preserving her future employability with other progressives rather than refusing to indict herself.